Dismissed

Ms Balaji Enterprises and others v. Union Bank of India

DRT29 Jan 2026SA/186/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This DRT dismissed an application seeking to quash SARFAESI proceedings, including demand and possession notices. The court held that since notices were sent to the address available with the bank, the applicant could not avail benefits of non-delivery due to the applicant's failure to update the bank. The challenge to the auction and sale was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed with costs. SARFAESI measures including auction and sale notice quashed order rejected.

Ms Balaji Enterprises and others versus Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

SA 186 of 2024 (J)

DRT,PATNA

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL PATNA

¶5

Presiding Officer: Shri Kaushalendra Yadav

¶6

SA- 186 of 2024

¶7

M/s Balaji Enterprises, through its Proprietor Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath (Borrower), having its address at Biscoman Colony. Pyarelal Ki Bagh, P.S. Agamkuan, Patna – 800007.

¶8

Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, S/o Late Tilakdhari Prasad (Borrower). resident of Mohalla–Chailitaal, P.S. Alamganj , P.O. Gulzarbagh, Patna – 800007.

¶9

..................Applicants

¶10

Versus

¶11

The Union of India, through the Regional Manager, Regional Office. 1 st Floor, Mazrul Nasheman Bhavan, Fraser Road, Budh Vihar, Patna – 800001.

¶12

The Authorised Officer, Union Bank of India, lst Floor, Mazrul Nasheman Bhavan, Fraser Road, Budh Vihar, Patna – 800001.

¶13

The Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Patna City Branch. Opposite Registry Office, Patna City, Patna – 800007.

¶14

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, S/o Late Ram Chandra Prasad, resident of Shivpur Tikiya Toli. Kamla Mandir, Radhe Radhe Pani Plant, Mahendru, Patna – 800006 ( Auction Purchaser).

¶15

......................... Respondents

¶16

Presents;

¶17

For the Applicants :Sh. Anjani Kumar Singh , Advocate For the Respondent Bank : Sh. Jitendra Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Respondent 4 : Sh. Brajesh Kumar Jha, Advocate

¶18

Dated: 29.01.2026

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire SARFAESI proceedings. including the demand notice, possession notice, sale notice dated 17.05.2024, and the sale confirmation letter.

¶21

9 The brief facts of the case are as follows: The applicant availed a cash credit loan of ?10,00,000/- from the respondent bank and. to secure the said loan. mortgaged

DRT,PATNA

SA 186 of 2024 (J)

the property in question with the respondent bank. Due to default in repayment, the loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 28.02.2019, whereafter the respondent bank issued a demand notice dated 11.04.2019 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Subsequently, the respondent bank issued a notice dated 10.02.2023 informing the applicant of its intention to take possession of the secured asset due to non-clearance of dues. Thereafter, a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 04.07.2023. Further, a sale notice dated 17.05.2024 was issued fixing the date of auction as 26.06.2024, pursuant to which the property in question was auctioned and sold in favour of respondent no. 4. Aggrieved by the said auction sale, the applicant has filed the present securitization application.

¶27

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that due to losses in business. the repayment of the loan became irregular, pursuant to which the respondent bank classified the loan account as NPA; however, no notice regarding declaration of the account as NPA was ever served upon the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant’s mother was suffering from cancer, due to which the applicant was compelled to stay with her at Tata. It is further submitted that the demand notice and the possession notice were never legally and validly served upon the applicant, and even the possession notice was neither affixed upon the secured asset nor published in newspapers within the stipulated period of seven days. It is further submitted that the sale notice was also not served upon the applicant and that the applicant came to know about the same only through a neighbour who had received a copy of the sale notice. It is further submitted that the respondent bank has calculated the interest amount and added the same to the principal amount, and therefore the present outstanding dues appear to be on the higher side. It is also submitted that during the period between 2019 and 2021, the applicant deposited a sum of ?8.35 lakhs towards the loan account.

¶28

4 The learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that due to default in repayment of the loan amount, the loan account was classified as a NonPerforming Asset (NPA) on 28.02.2019. Thereafter, the respondent bank issued a demand notice dated 11.04.2019 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, which was duly served upon the applicant. Subsequently, on 10.02.2023. the bank issued a notice informing the applicant that despite service of the demand notice, the loan liability had not been discharged and that possession of the secured asset

DRT,PATNA

SA 186 of 2024 (J)

would be taken. As the dues remained unpaid, the respondent bank issued a possession notice dated 04.07.2023 under Section 13(4) of the Act. which was duly served upon the applicant. published in two newspapers, and affixed on the secured asset. Thereafter, a valuation report dated 06.07.2023 was obtained from an authorised valuer. A redemption notice dated 14.02.2024 was thereafter issued and duly delivered to the applicant. Subsequently, a sale notice dated 17.05.2024 was issued, fixing the date of auction as 26.06.2024, which was duly served upon the applicant, affixed on the secured asset, and published in two newspapers. Pursuant thereto, the secured asset was auctioned and sold in favour of the highest bidder, namely respondent no. 4. It is further submitted that the auction purchaser sought extension of time for payment after depositing an amount of ?4.15.000/- on 27.06.2024, and the time for payment was extended up to 09.08.2024. The auction purchaser paid the remaining amount within the extended period, and accordingly, a sale certificate dated 06.08.2024 was issued in favour of respondent no. 4. It is also submitted that the applicant had another loan account which was also in default, and after adjustment of the loan amount pertaining to the account in question, the remaining amount of ?9,61,300/- was adjusted against the other loan account of the applicant.

¶33

The learned counsel for the auction purchaser submitted that the auction purchaser participated in the e-auction dated 26.06.2024 and bid for the secured property, and the respondent no. 4 was declared as the highest bidder. Being the highest bidder, he deposited 25% of the total bid amount within the prescribed time, and the sale was confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser, namely Pradeep Kumar. However, the respondent no. 4 could not deposit the remaining 75% of the bid amount, i.e., ?27,27,000, within the stipulated time and accordingly requested for extension of time from the respondent bank. The respondent bank granted further time up to 10.08.2024, and within the said extended period, the entire balance amount was deposited by the respondent no. 4, whereafter the bank issued a sale certificate dated 08.08.2024 in his favour. Thereafter, the respondent bank made an application before the District Magistrate, Patna for taking physical possession of the secured property, and on 01.10.2024, the District Magistrate passed an order for taking physical possession. Subsequently, on 15.10.2024, the physical possession of the property was taken in the presence of the Magistrate and other officials and was handed over to the respondent no. 4, who is presently enjoying

td,,

SA 186 of 2024 (J)

DRT,PATNA

peaceful possession of the secured property.

¶39

1 have heard the learned counsels of both the parties and gone through the records.

¶40

The main allegation of the applicants are that the demand notice and the possession notice were never legally and validly served upon the applicant. and even the possession notice was neither affixed upon the secured asset nor published in newspapers within the stipulated period of seven days. It is further alleged that the sale notice was also not served upon the applicant.

¶41

Upon perusal of the record, it is found that the demand notice dated 11.04.2019 was sent to the applicant by post on 17.05.2019, as evident from page 28 of the counter affidavit; however, no tracking report has been annexed.

¶42

As far as the possession notice dated 04.07.2023 is concerned, the respondent bank has submitted that the same was sent by post on 04.07.2023 and has annexed a photocopy of the postal receipt at page 33 of the counter affidavit; however. the same is not legible. Further, at page 34, a photocopy of the possession notice has been annexed, on which a photocopy of a postal receipt is also pasted, but the same is also not legible. At page 35, another postal receipt has been annexed, which shows that it was sent to the applicant; however, the date is not legible there as well. The possession notice was affixed on the secured asset, as evident from page 36 of the counter affidavit, and the same was published in two newspapers. namely Prabhat Khabar and The Indian Express, on 07.07.2023, as evident from pages 37 and 38 of the counter affidavit, which is within seven days from the issuance of the possessron notlce.

¶43

The sale notice dated 17.05.2024 was sent to the applicant by post on 18.05.2024, as evident from page 58 of the counter affidavit, and the postal receipt has been annexed therewith; however, no tracking report has been annexed. The sale notice was also affixed on the secured asset, as evident from page 59 of the counter affidavit, and the same was published in two newspapers, namely Dai tri k Bhaskar and The Indian Express, on 23.05.2024, as evident from pages 60 and 61 of the counter affidavits however no tracking report has been annexed.

¶44

In paragraph 5(xi) of the S. A., the applicant has stated that he was residing with his mother at Tata and has claimed that no notices were served upon him. Upon perusal of the record, it is found that the respondent bank had sent all the notices to the address of the applicant which was available with the bank, i.e., the Patna address. It may be the reason that the notices were not delivered to the applicant, as

U,,

SA 186 of 2024 (J)

DRT,PATNA

no tracking report has been filed by the bank. However, it was the fault of the apblicant that if he was residing in a different city, he ought to have intimated the bank about the said address; however. the applicant has not filed any proof of such intimation. Therefore, the bank cannot be faulted on this ground.

¶50

In view of the above discussion as the respondent Bank has sent notices on available address but the applicant had left the given address, he is not entitled to any benefit of this. The measures under challenge are not vitiated and the SA deserves to be dismissed.

¶51

ORDER

¶52

Fhe application SA 186 of 2024 filed by M/s Balaji Enterprises & Ors., is dismissed with costs.

¶53

[KaushalendraYadav]

¶54

Presiding Officer

¶55

Debts Recovery Tribunal. Patna

¶56

Judgment signed. sealed, dated and pronounced in the open court on this 29111 Day of January. 2026. .n*

[KaushalendraYadav]

Presiding Officer

Debts Recovery Tribunal. Patna

Ms Balaji Enterprises and others v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Balaji Enterprises and others v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Limited versus Abhishek Pratap

Central Bank of India versus M/S Maheshwari Ayurvedic Stores

Icici Bank Limited versus Sadiya

Central Bank of India versus Atul Kumar Tiwari S/O Shri Dinesh Prasad Sharma

Bank of India versus Praneeta

Shivani Traders versus Au Small Finance Bank Limited